memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Yesterday's Enterprise (episode)
Episode talk page Maintenance links __TOC__ Amount of dialogue? How much of the actual dialogue am I able to transcribe in the summary? Obviously, I'm not planning to simple repeat the script as broadcast, but, as already demonstrated, transcribe plot-crucial statements and/or brief conversations. How much would be too much? Additionally, would it be OK to, for example, link to Dan's copy of the draft script (which was freely distributed by Paramount on their TNG Companion CD-ROM, and now in the public domain, thanks to Dan...). --DarkHorizon 12:57, 7 Dec 2003 (PST) : Well.. seeing as the scripts are actually (probably) not quite public domain, complete reproductions would be a bit iffy. And if you want to link to Dan's scripts, it would be easier to do so at Star Trek: The Next Generation. Saves you the work of putting links in all the summaries :) One suggestion, though: you could make some more links in the summary text. Doesn't matter if they exist or not. -- Harry 14:27, 7 Dec 2003 (PST) My primary concern was actually getting the summary up. Now that it is, I'll start going through and linking. -- DarkHorizon 14:32, 7 Dec 2003 (PST) ::The scripts are NOT in the public domain... they remain the property of Paramount, as I understand it. They're still under copyright -- it's just possible to distribute them under "fair use" because Paramount's not selling them anymore. It's a thin reasoning, and if anyone complained I'd just take them down, but they're there for the time being. ::Regardless, I don't think that using quotes from the script is something we want to do on a regular basis, at least in the format you're doing it, Michael. I understand what you're trying to do, but I don't think it's in the format of an encyclopedia. Short, inline quotes inside a paragraph is one thing, but putting in blocks of script text is a bit different, IMO. -- MinutiaeMan 07:20, 8 Dec 2003 (PST) Understood about the scripts, Dan. If you want to go in and pare down the dialogue I've put into the summary, go right ahead (after all, isn't that the point? :D). It was just a trade-off between essentially doing it in the summary or letting the words speak for themselves. Plus, I doubt I'd be able to do something on this scale for any other episode... (the problems of having one favourite episode that you know too much about, I guess... :)) Perhaps a 'Memorable Quotes' section may be appropriate? -- DarkHorizon 08:22, 8 Dec 2003 (PST) :::Good article. Two points, however: why have you uploaded the (audio?) file in .OGG? And second: please make Links! I've started making Links now, but it would be so much easier if you would make them while writing the article. :) Ottens 22:14, 10 Jun 2004 (CEST) Basically because it's the only non-propietary media format. There is a page dealing with it on Wikipedia. As for the links, I started the article over six months ago... -- Michael Warren 22:30, 10 Jun 2004 (CEST) :::Real One Player and Windows Medio Player can't seem to open it... Well, that explains why there weren't any links ;-) Ottens 09:56, 11 Jun 2004 (CEST) :: I've opened up a thread in Ten Forward about the issue of MP3 versus OGG formats. Let's continue the discussion there, since it's appropriate to the entire wiki. :-) -- Dan Carlson 15:01, 11 Jun 2004 (CEST) ::: I just read we missed the decapitation of Wesley Crusher in this episode. Too bad. :P Ottens 16:25, 23 Aug 2004 (CEST) Featured status discussions FA Nomination ; : Nominated mainly for its great summary of a great episode. -- Dan Carlson 22:33, 10 Jun 2004 (CEST) *Obviously second. :) -- Michael Warren 22:36, 10 Jun 2004 (CEST) *Seconded. Great work. Ottens 19:55, 12 Jun 2004 (CEST) *Seconded. Very well written. -- Redge 21:43, 12 Jun 2004 (CEST) *'Archived'--Alan del Beccio 00:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Still featured ? I think this article no longer fulfills the criteria for an featured (episode) article. It certainly did so when it became featured, but I think a new standard for episode articles has been established (Teaser, Act One etc.) Unless someone brings up a good point why not, I'll nominate this article for removal. Kennelly 15:26, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC) Article nominated for removal :From Memory Alpha:Featured article removal candidates ; : A shorter article than most of the other featured articles, especially considering it is an episode article. --Defiant | ''Talk'' 02:15, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC) **Unsurprisingly, oppose. I have drastically expanded the Background Information section to detail the rather unique creation of this episode, and added some more images to the article. In addition, I dislike that episode summaries must now contain a blow-by-blow account of every single movement and gesture that is seen on screen. This is by no means a slight on your work, amongst others, Defiant, but such is really antithetical to the point of a summary, which is to distill the information presented, not catalog it verbatim. As such, this summary is concise, detailed, and complete. Just because it's shorter doesn't necessarily mean it's worse. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 14:48, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC) ***'Oppose' I'm not a fan of the Act 1/2/3 etc sections of many episode summaries. This summary is succinct and to the point. Tough Little Ship 14:52, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC) ***I'm going to say oppose as well because, although I do like the five-act system, this article currently has such a wealth of information that I couldn't justify removing it. I also agree about the novelizations (and I mean that word as a compliment, because I think they're very well written) being overboard on episode summaries. --Schrei 20:10, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Oppose.' This article is very well written, and contains thouroughly researched background information. Jaz 21:05, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Oppose.' As DH said, "Just because it's shorter doesn't necessarily mean it's worse". The background information on the episode is superb and I think it'd be a shame to remove the article's featured status.--Scimitar 23:52, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Oppose.' It's a wonderful article. IMHO, it should be held up as an example of what the episode pages should be like. The deep background information is fascinating and the story synopsis is well written. I too dislike the Act 1/2/3 sections in some other episode pages. Weyoun 20:07, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC) *Definitely oppose. The summary is still a little too long for my personal tastes, but the background and production info is excellent and shows the potential for episode FAs. Logan 5 20:59, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Oppose'. I don't think the summery is "too long" in any way, neither is it too "short". Along with the recently added background material, I, in fact, think this page is what an episode Featured Article should look like. Ottens 16:56, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Oppose' as well and archived --Memory 23:22, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC) The Neutral Zone In "The Neutral Zone" is states it had been 50+ years since the Federation and Romulans had contact; yet here there is an encounter with the Enterprise-C (in both timelines). How is this explained? : I would assume that the 50 year thing referred to offical communication. Its quite possible that the Enterprise-C, in responding to a distress call, went straight into battle and didn't communicate with the attacking Romulan ships (until some of them were captured obviously). As the Enterprise-C didn't return from that battle, and Starfleet listed it as lost, theres no record of direct contact until 2364 anyway. ::Well, Starfleet did not simply record it as lost. They knew of the battle, as this quote from Redemption II illustrates: ::*PICARD: "The Enterprise C? It was lost...at the battle of Narendra Three...while defending a Klingon outpost from the Romulans." ::Picard knew of the battle, and so did Starfleet. The point of contact in terms of communication still holds water, though. --OuroborosCobra talk 22:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC) :::Remember that Tasha went back with the C so the timeline had been changed. In the new timeline, the battle was known about. In the old one, it was lost. The Neutral Zone takes place before Yesterday's Enterprise, before the timeline was altered. :::: There is a possible in-universe explanation for this discrepancy. In the altered timeline, Data corrects Ensign Wesley Crusher's claim that the Enterprise-C was "destroyed with all hands over twenty years ago." Data states: "Presumed Destroyed. The Enterprise-C was last seen near the Klingon outpost Narendra III exactly 22 years, three months, and four days ago." The ship had, in fact, journeyed to the future, never making contact with the Romulans, and effectively disappearing. :::: In the original timeline it is unknown if the Enterprise-C ever made any communications stating it was under attack by Romulan Warbirds. :::: Similar occurrences are demonstrated on several occasions during the DS9 Dominion War. When Captain Benjamin Sisko and his crew are informed that a ship is "missing" they often take this as an indication it has been destroyed in combat. ( ) :::: Though the Enterprise-C had indeed encountered Romulans at Narendra III, Starfleet and The Federation may not have known. Thus, at the time of in the original timeline, to Data and Starfleet's knowledge, it had been over 53 years since The Federation had shared contact with the Romulans. :::: In the restored timeline, Captain Picard states of the Enterprise-C: “It was lost at the Battle of Narendra III, defending a Klingon outpost from the Romulans.” ( ) :::: All events that take place after 2344 are now in a “restored” timeline in which events are slightly different from those in the first 61 episodes of TNG. Natasha Yar had joined the crew of the Enterprise-C and her actions (or the actions of a crew who had been to the future and knew the outcome of the battle they were about to fight) may have lead to successfully contacting Starfleet with the information about the Romulans. :::: It is therefore unknown if Data ever made any remarks in the restored timeline pertaining to how long it had been since The Federation had shared contact with the Romulans. If he had, it stands to reason he would have stated it had been 20 years etc. :::: It is possible that a predestination paradox exists in which Tasha Yar had been aboard the Enterprise-C the first time the Battle of Narendra III was fought, nullifying this argument. But, since the nature of temporal mechanics in Trek is largely inconsistent, nothing can be proven. – Kylestrahm 07:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC) Generations Connection Did anyone notice the similatities between the Engineering scene in Yesterday's Enterprise and Generations, when La Forge is reporting a containment failure and a cooliant line burst?-- Captain Montgomery 21:41, 8 Febuary 2007 (UTC) : Actually, there were several episodes where Geordi's warp core breach scene is mirrored to the one in Generations, in fact, in one episode, they even go so far as to have him do a roll/dive under the blast door that lowers in Engineering like he would eventually do in the film. -- 02:33, 21 July 2007 (PDT) Wesley Crusher Can anyone explain what he's doing on the 'Military' Enterprise? As a warship, it wouldn't have had families, so he wouldn't have come on board with his mother, so what's he doing there? 19:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC) :Likely, he went to Starfleet Academy, proved himself during his time there, and was posted aboard the Enterprise where his mother just happened to be posted (or perhaps because she was posted there, who knows). --From Andoria with Love 05:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC) ::Agreed. He was wearing a regular uniform. He seemed to be a full ensign, not an acting one. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC) :::Meh, it's rather implausible that people from our timeline would happen to be assigned to the same ships in the other timeline in the first place (and even if you assume they had, how did every one of them happen to survive to that point?). :-) In addition, I believe Wesley was born after the point of divergence, so it's improbable that he'd even EXIST in the first place Nik 07:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC) ::See, right there is when you are taking it all too seriously. It is a TV show, a creation of writers to be entertaining. It wouldn't be that entertaining if they had to follow all the rules, have nothing be at all the same, etc. Fans need to stop being such idiots about this, and remember it is a TV show. --OuroborosCobra talk 07:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC) :::That was my point, actually. Since the whole thing's implausible (like, well, most of Star Trek), why worry about a little thing like Wesley Crusher being on board? Though, I do think it would've been neat if they'd gotten different actors, and maybe kept one or two characters ... maybe even a reference to "the previous captain, Jean-Luc Picard ..." :-) Nik 07:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC) ::::Re: gotten different actors.. interesting comment considering they devised the whole scenario in order to facilitate putting Denise Crosby at tactical for an episode, rather than their usual Michael Dorn, who was excluded.. -- Captain MKB 08:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC) :::::Because The Federation had been on the losing side of a bloody war for years, it is likely they needed all the manpower they could get. Similar circumstances were present when Nog was promoted to ensign during the Dominion War. ( ) – Kylestrahm 07:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC) Winning instead of losing? Ever since I saw this episode (one of my favorites in TNG, I might add), I've kept wondering about two things: When Picard confers with Garrett aboard the Enterprise-C, he reveals to her that "the war is going very badly for the Federation" and that "defeat is inevitable". These circumstances obviously made both Picard and Garrett very eager to defer to Guinan's judgment and send the Enterprise-C back. However, this little dialogue raises two questions: 1. What if the Federation would be on the winning side of the war, with the final blow to the Klingon Empire only months away? In that case, would they send the Enterprise-C back as well, to prevent a crushing defeat of a long-standing enemy? I don't think they would. 2. Another thing: apparently the "inevitable defeat" was unknown to most people in the Federation. But how could Starfleet Command have kept this a secret? If hundreds or thousands of starships are destroyed by the Klingons, and casualties reach into the billions, then people, in- and outside of Starfleet, should start realizing what's really going on, shouldn't they? Have people really become that naive in the 24th century? ;) --Mr. Tuvok 02:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC) :Memory Alpha isn't the place for this kind of discussion. These talk pages are for discussion on changes to the article itself. I would suggest going somewhere like TrekBBS for something like this. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)